DOCSLIB.ORG

Determinants of Commuting-Block Matrices by Istvan Kovacs, Daniel S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Determinants of Commuting-Block Matrices by Istvan Kovacs, Daniel S Determinants of Commuting-Block Matrices by Istvan Kovacs, Daniel S. Silver*, and Susan G. Williams* Let R beacommutative ring, and Matn(R) the ring of n × n matrices over R.We (i,j) can regard a k × k matrix M =(A ) over Matn(R)asablock matrix,amatrix that has been partitioned into k2 submatrices (blocks)overR, each of size n × n. When M is regarded in this way, we denote its determinant by |M|.Wewill use the symbol D(M) for the determinant of M viewed as a k × k matrix over Matn(R). It is important to realize that D(M)isann × n matrix. Theorem 1. Let R be acommutative ring. Assume that M is a k × k block matrix of (i,j) blocks A ∈ Matn(R) that commute pairwise. Then | | | | (1,π(1)) (2,π(2)) ··· (k,π(k)) (1) M = D(M) = (sgn π)A A A . π∈Sk Here Sk is the symmetric group on k symbols; the summation is the usual one that appears in the definition of determinant. Theorem 1 is well known in the case k =2;the proof is often left as an exercise in linear algebra texts (see [4, page 164], for example). The general result is implicit in [3], but it is not widely known. We present a short, elementary proof using mathematical induction on k.Wesketch a second proof when the ring R has no zero divisors, a proof that is based on [3] and avoids induction by using the fact that commuting matrices over an algebraically closed field can be simultaneously triangularized. Proof.Weuse induction on k. The case k =1is evident. We suppose that (1) is true for k − 1 and then prove it for k. Observe that the following matrix equation holds. IO··· O IO··· O A(1,1) ∗∗∗ − (2,1) ··· (1,1) ··· A I O OA O O . . M = . , . ··· . .. N −A(k,1) O ··· I OO··· A(1,1) O where N is a (k − 1) × (k − 1) matrix. For the sake of notation, we write this as (2) PQM = R, *The second and third authors are partially supported by National Science Foundation Grant DMS-9704399 1 where the symbols are defined appropriately. By the multiplicative property of determi- nants we have D(PQM)=D(P )D(Q)D(M)=(A(1,1))k−1D(M) and D(R)=A(1,1)D(N). Hence we have (A(1,1))k−1D(M)=A(1,1)D(N). Take the determinant of both sides of the last equation. Using |D(N)| = |N|,aconsequence of the induction hypothesis, together with (2) we find |A(1,1)|k−1|D(M)| = |A(1,1)||D(N)| = |A(1,1)||N| = |R| = |P ||Q||M| = |A(1,1)|k−1|M|. If |A(1,1)| is not zero nor a zero divisor, then we can divide the sides by |A(1,1)|k−1 to get (1). For the general case, we embed R in the polynomial ring R[z], where z is an indeterminant, and replace A(1,1) by the matrix zI + A(1,1). Since the determinant of zI + A(1,1) is a monic polynomial of degree n, and hence is nonzero and not a zero divisor, equation (1) again holds. Substituting z =0(equivalently, equating constant terms of both sides) yields the desired result. We sketch an alternative proof of Theorem 1 when R has no zero divisors, a proof suggested to us by the referee. It is based on ideas of [3] (see also [1]). If R is a commutative ring with no zero divisors, then we can embed it in its quotient field and then pass to the algebraic closure F .Wenow regard the blocks A(i,j) as operators on the vector space F n, and M as an operator on the tensor product V = F n ⊗ F k. Since the blocks A(i,j) commute pairwise, there exists a basis for F n with respect to which each A(i,j) is upper triangular (see [2], for example). We form the tensor product of such a basis with the standard one for F k, thereby constructing a new basis for V . The change of basis has the effect on M of simultaneously triangularizing each block. Thus it suffices to assume that each block A(i,j) is upper triangular. The matrix M is permutation-similar to a k × k block matrix M˜ =(A˜p,q) such that (i,j) (i,j) A˜p,q =(Ap,q )isann × n matrix consisting of the p, q-entries of the A . Since each (i,j) ˜ | ˜ | | ˜ |···|˜ | A is upper triangular, Ap,q =0whenever p>q. Hence M = A1,1 An,n = n (1,π(1)) (k,π(k)) (i,j) ∈ (sgn π)Ar,r ···Ar,r . Since each A is upper triangular, the last r=1 π Sk n (1,π(1)) (k,π(k)) product is equal to ∈ (sgn π)(A ···A )r,r . But this is equal to r=1 π Sk | (sgn π)A(1,π(1)) ...A(k,π(k))|. Hence equation (1) holds. π∈Sk The second proof shows that the commutativity hypotheses of Theorem 1 can be replaced by the weaker condition that the blocks can be simultaneously triangularized. However, some hypothesis about the blocks is certainly needed for the conclusion of the theorem to hold, as the reader can see by considering the matrix M below. 1000 0001 M = 0100 0010 We conclude by describing a class of block matrices that satisfy the commutativity hypothesis of Theorem 1. Matrices of this type arose in [5], and were the original motivation for this investigation. Let p(i,j)(t)bepolynomials, 1 ≤ i, j ≤ k, and let N be an n × n 2 matrix. All coefficients are in R, which can be taken to be the field of complex numbers, if the reader desires. Since the matrices p(i,j)(N) commute pairwise, the block matrix p(1,1)(N) ··· p(1,k)(N) . M = . .. p(k,1)(N) ··· p(k,k)(N) satisfies the hypothesis of Theorem 1. In fact, using the theorem we can say something about the determinant of M. Let p(t)bethe determinant of p(1,1)(t) ··· p(1,k)(t) . . .. , p(k,1)(t) ··· p(k,k)(t) and let ζ1,...,ζn be the (not necessarily distinct) eigenvalues of N.Weleave the proof of the following assertion as an exercise. n |M| = p(ζr). r=1 Bibliography [1] R. Bhatia, R. A. Horn and F. Kittaneh, Normal approximants to binormal operators, Linear Alg. Appl. 147 (1991), 169 – 179. [2] R. R. Halmos, Finite-dimensional Vector Spaces, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1993. [3] R. A. Horn, Solution to Problem 96–11, SIAM Review 39 (1997), 518 – 519. [4] K. Hoffman and R. Kunze, Linear Algebra, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1971. [5] D. S. Silver and S. G. Williams, Coloring link diagrams with a continuous palette, Topology,toappear. Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of South Alabama Mobile, AL 36688 e-mail: [email protected], [email protected] 3.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • On Multivariate Interpolation
    On Multivariate Interpolation Peter J. Olver† School of Mathematics University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN 55455 U.S.A. [email protected] http://www.math.umn.edu/∼olver Abstract. A new approach to interpolation theory for functions of several variables is proposed. We develop a multivariate divided difference calculus based on the theory of non-commutative quasi-determinants. In addition, intriguing explicit formulae that connect the classical finite difference interpolation coefficients for univariate curves with multivariate interpolation coefficients for higher dimensional submanifolds are established. † Supported in part by NSF Grant DMS 11–08894. April 6, 2016 1 1. Introduction. Interpolation theory for functions of a single variable has a long and distinguished his- tory, dating back to Newton’s fundamental interpolation formula and the classical calculus of finite differences, [7, 47, 58, 64]. Standard numerical approximations to derivatives and many numerical integration methods for differential equations are based on the finite dif- ference calculus. However, historically, no comparable calculus was developed for functions of more than one variable. If one looks up multivariate interpolation in the classical books, one is essentially restricted to rectangular, or, slightly more generally, separable grids, over which the formulae are a simple adaptation of the univariate divided difference calculus. See [19] for historical details. Starting with G. Birkhoff, [2] (who was, coincidentally, my thesis advisor), recent years have seen a renewed level of interest in multivariate interpolation among both pure and applied researchers; see [18] for a fairly recent survey containing an extensive bibli- ography. De Boor and Ron, [8, 12, 13], and Sauer and Xu, [61, 10, 65], have systemati- cally studied the polynomial case.
    [Show full text]
  • Irreducibility in Algebraic Groups and Regular Unipotent Elements
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 141, Number 1, January 2013, Pages 13–28 S 0002-9939(2012)11898-2 Article electronically published on August 16, 2012 IRREDUCIBILITY IN ALGEBRAIC GROUPS AND REGULAR UNIPOTENT ELEMENTS DONNA TESTERMAN AND ALEXANDRE ZALESSKI (Communicated by Pham Huu Tiep) Abstract. We study (connected) reductive subgroups G of a reductive alge- braic group H,whereG contains a regular unipotent element of H.Themain result states that G cannot lie in a proper parabolic subgroup of H. This result is new even in the classical case H =SL(n, F ), the special linear group over an algebraically closed field, where a regular unipotent element is one whose Jor- dan normal form consists of a single block. In previous work, Saxl and Seitz (1997) determined the maximal closed positive-dimensional (not necessarily connected) subgroups of simple algebraic groups containing regular unipotent elements. Combining their work with our main result, we classify all reductive subgroups of a simple algebraic group H which contain a regular unipotent element. 1. Introduction Let H be a reductive linear algebraic group defined over an algebraically closed field F . Throughout this text ‘reductive’ will mean ‘connected reductive’. A unipo- tent element u ∈ H is said to be regular if the dimension of its centralizer CH (u) coincides with the rank of H (or, equivalently, u is contained in a unique Borel subgroup of H). Regular unipotent elements of a reductive algebraic group exist in all characteristics (see [22]) and form a single conjugacy class. These play an important role in the general theory of algebraic groups.
    [Show full text]
  • 9. Properties of Matrices Block Matrices
    9. Properties of Matrices Block Matrices It is often convenient to partition a matrix M into smaller matrices called blocks, like so: 01 2 3 11 ! B C B4 5 6 0C A B M = B C = @7 8 9 1A C D 0 1 2 0 01 2 31 011 B C B C Here A = @4 5 6A, B = @0A, C = 0 1 2 , D = (0). 7 8 9 1 • The blocks of a block matrix must fit together to form a rectangle. So ! ! B A C B makes sense, but does not. D C D A • There are many ways to cut up an n × n matrix into blocks. Often context or the entries of the matrix will suggest a useful way to divide the matrix into blocks. For example, if there are large blocks of zeros in a matrix, or blocks that look like an identity matrix, it can be useful to partition the matrix accordingly. • Matrix operations on block matrices can be carried out by treating the blocks as matrix entries. In the example above, ! ! A B A B M 2 = C D C D ! A2 + BC AB + BD = CA + DC CB + D2 1 Computing the individual blocks, we get: 0 30 37 44 1 2 B C A + BC = @ 66 81 96 A 102 127 152 0 4 1 B C AB + BD = @10A 16 0181 B C CA + DC = @21A 24 CB + D2 = (2) Assembling these pieces into a block matrix gives: 0 30 37 44 4 1 B C B 66 81 96 10C B C @102 127 152 16A 4 10 16 2 This is exactly M 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Block Matrices in Linear Algebra
    PRIMUS Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies ISSN: 1051-1970 (Print) 1935-4053 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/upri20 Block Matrices in Linear Algebra Stephan Ramon Garcia & Roger A. Horn To cite this article: Stephan Ramon Garcia & Roger A. Horn (2020) Block Matrices in Linear Algebra, PRIMUS, 30:3, 285-306, DOI: 10.1080/10511970.2019.1567214 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2019.1567214 Accepted author version posted online: 05 Feb 2019. Published online: 13 May 2019. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 86 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=upri20 PRIMUS, 30(3): 285–306, 2020 Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1051-1970 print / 1935-4053 online DOI: 10.1080/10511970.2019.1567214 Block Matrices in Linear Algebra Stephan Ramon Garcia and Roger A. Horn Abstract: Linear algebra is best done with block matrices. As evidence in sup- port of this thesis, we present numerous examples suitable for classroom presentation. Keywords: Matrix, matrix multiplication, block matrix, Kronecker product, rank, eigenvalues 1. INTRODUCTION This paper is addressed to instructors of a first course in linear algebra, who need not be specialists in the field. We aim to convince the reader that linear algebra is best done with block matrices. In particular, flexible thinking about the process of matrix multiplication can reveal concise proofs of important theorems and expose new results. Viewing linear algebra from a block-matrix perspective gives an instructor access to use- ful techniques, exercises, and examples.
    [Show full text]
  • Linear Algebra Review
    Linear Algebra Review Kaiyu Zheng October 2017 Linear algebra is fundamental for many areas in computer science. This document aims at providing a reference (mostly for myself) when I need to remember some concepts or examples. Instead of a collection of facts as the Matrix Cookbook, this document is more gentle like a tutorial. Most of the content come from my notes while taking the undergraduate linear algebra course (Math 308) at the University of Washington. Contents on more advanced topics are collected from reading different sources on the Internet. Contents 3.8 Exponential and 7 Special Matrices 19 Logarithm...... 11 7.1 Block Matrix.... 19 1 Linear System of Equa- 3.9 Conversion Be- 7.2 Orthogonal..... 20 tions2 tween Matrix Nota- 7.3 Diagonal....... 20 tion and Summation 12 7.4 Diagonalizable... 20 2 Vectors3 7.5 Symmetric...... 21 2.1 Linear independence5 4 Vector Spaces 13 7.6 Positive-Definite.. 21 2.2 Linear dependence.5 4.1 Determinant..... 13 7.7 Singular Value De- 2.3 Linear transforma- 4.2 Kernel........ 15 composition..... 22 tion.........5 4.3 Basis......... 15 7.8 Similar........ 22 7.9 Jordan Normal Form 23 4.4 Change of Basis... 16 3 Matrix Algebra6 7.10 Hermitian...... 23 4.5 Dimension, Row & 7.11 Discrete Fourier 3.1 Addition.......6 Column Space, and Transform...... 24 3.2 Scalar Multiplication6 Rank......... 17 3.3 Matrix Multiplication6 8 Matrix Calculus 24 3.4 Transpose......8 5 Eigen 17 8.1 Differentiation... 24 3.4.1 Conjugate 5.1 Multiplicity of 8.2 Jacobian......
    [Show full text]
  • MATH. 513. JORDAN FORM Let A1,...,Ak Be Square Matrices of Size
    MATH. 513. JORDAN FORM Let A1,...,Ak be square matrices of size n1, . , nk, respectively with entries in a field F . We define the matrix A1 ⊕ ... ⊕ Ak of size n = n1 + ... + nk as the block matrix A1 0 0 ... 0 0 A2 0 ... 0 . . 0 ...... 0 Ak It is called the direct sum of the matrices A1,...,Ak. A matrix of the form λ 1 0 ... 0 0 λ 1 ... 0 . . 0 . λ 1 0 ...... 0 λ is called a Jordan block. If k is its size, it is denoted by Jk(λ). A direct sum J = Jk1 ⊕ ... ⊕ Jkr (λr) of Jordan blocks is called a Jordan matrix. Theorem. Let T : V → V be a linear operator in a finite-dimensional vector space over a field F . Assume that the characteristic polynomial of T is a product of linear polynimials. Then there exists a basis E in V such that [T ]E is a Jordan matrix. Corollary. Let A ∈ Mn(F ). Assume that its characteristic polynomial is a product of linear polynomials. Then there exists a Jordan matrix J and an invertible matrix C such that A = CJC−1. Notice that the Jordan matrix J (which is called a Jordan form of A) is not defined uniquely. For example, we can permute its Jordan blocks. Otherwise the matrix J is defined uniquely (see Problem 7). On the other hand, there are many choices for C. We have seen this already in the diagonalization process. What is good about it? We have, as in the case when A is diagonalizable, AN = CJ N C−1.
    [Show full text]
  • Numerically Stable Coded Matrix Computations Via Circulant and Rotation Matrix Embeddings
    1 Numerically stable coded matrix computations via circulant and rotation matrix embeddings Aditya Ramamoorthy and Li Tang Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011 fadityar,[email protected] Abstract Polynomial based methods have recently been used in several works for mitigating the effect of stragglers (slow or failed nodes) in distributed matrix computations. For a system with n worker nodes where s can be stragglers, these approaches allow for an optimal recovery threshold, whereby the intended result can be decoded as long as any (n − s) worker nodes complete their tasks. However, they suffer from serious numerical issues owing to the condition number of the corresponding real Vandermonde-structured recovery matrices; this condition number grows exponentially in n. We present a novel approach that leverages the properties of circulant permutation matrices and rotation matrices for coded matrix computation. In addition to having an optimal recovery threshold, we demonstrate an upper bound on the worst-case condition number of our recovery matrices which grows as ≈ O(ns+5:5); in the practical scenario where s is a constant, this grows polynomially in n. Our schemes leverage the well-behaved conditioning of complex Vandermonde matrices with parameters on the complex unit circle, while still working with computation over the reals. Exhaustive experimental results demonstrate that our proposed method has condition numbers that are orders of magnitude lower than prior work. I. INTRODUCTION Present day computing needs necessitate the usage of large computation clusters that regularly process huge amounts of data on a regular basis. In several of the relevant application domains such as machine learning, arXiv:1910.06515v4 [cs.IT] 9 Jun 2021 datasets are often so large that they cannot even be stored in the disk of a single server.
    [Show full text]
  • The Jordan-Form Proof Made Easy∗
    THE JORDAN-FORM PROOF MADE EASY∗ LEO LIVSHITSy , GORDON MACDONALDz, BEN MATHESy, AND HEYDAR RADJAVIx Abstract. A derivation of the Jordan Canonical Form for linear transformations acting on finite dimensional vector spaces over C is given. The proof is constructive and elementary, using only basic concepts from introductory linear algebra and relying on repeated application of similarities. Key words. Jordan Canonical Form, block decomposition, similarity AMS subject classifications. 15A21, 00-02 1. Introduction. The Jordan Canonical Form (JCF) is undoubtably the most useful representation for illuminating the structure of a single linear transformation acting on a finite-dimensional vector space over C (or a general algebraically closed field.) Theorem 1.1. [The Jordan Canonical Form Theorem] Any linear transforma- tion T : Cn ! Cn has a block matrix (with respect to a direct-sum decomposition of Cn) of the form J1 0 0 · · · 0 2 0 J2 0 · · · 0 3 0 0 J · · · 0 6 3 7 6 . 7 6 . .. 0 7 6 7 6 0 0 0 0 J 7 4 p 5 where each Ji (called a Jordan block) has a matrix representation (with respect to some basis) of the form λ 1 0 · · · 0 2 0 λ 1 · · · 0 3 . 6 0 0 λ .. 0 7 : 6 7 6 . 7 6 . .. 1 7 6 7 6 0 0 0 0 λ 7 4 5 Of course, the Jordan Canonical Form Theorem tells you more: that the above decomposition is unique (up to permuting the blocks) while the sizes and number of blocks can be given in terms of generalized multiplicities of eigenvalues.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 13: Complex Eigenvalues & Factorization
    Lecture 13: Complex Eigenvalues & Factorization Consider the rotation matrix 0 1 A = . (1) 1 ¡0 · ¸ To …nd eigenvalues, we write ¸ 1 A ¸I = ¡ ¡ , ¡ 1 ¸ · ¡ ¸ and calculate its determinant det (A ¸I) = ¸2 + 1 = 0. ¡ We see that A has only complex eigenvalues ¸= p 1 = i. § ¡ § Therefore, it is impossible to diagonalize the rotation matrix. In general, if a matrix has complex eigenvalues, it is not diagonalizable. In this lecture, we shall study matrices with complex eigenvalues. Since eigenvalues are roots of characteristic polynomials with real coe¢cients, complex eigenvalues always appear in pairs: If ¸0 = a + bi is a complex eigenvalue, so is its conjugate ¸¹0 = a bi. ¡ For any complex eigenvalue, we can proceed to …nd its (complex) eigenvectors in the same way as we did for real eigenvalues. Example 13.1. For the matrix A in (1) above, …nd eigenvectors. ¹ Solution. We already know its eigenvalues: ¸0 = i, ¸0 = i. For ¸0 = i, we solve (A iI) ~x = ~0 as follows: performing (complex) row operations to¡get (noting that i2 = 1) ¡ ¡ i 1 iR1+R2 R2 i 1 A iI = ¡ ¡ ¡ ! ¡ ¡ ¡ 1 i ! 0 0 · ¡ ¸ · ¸ = ix1 x2 = 0 = x2 = ix1 ) ¡ ¡ ) ¡ x1 1 1 0 take x1 = 1, ~u = = = i x2 i 0 ¡ 1 · ¸ ·¡ ¸ · ¸ · ¸ is an eigenvalue for ¸= i. For ¸= i, we proceed similarly as follows: ¡ i 1 iR1+R2 R2 i 1 A + iI = ¡ ! ¡ = ix1 x2 = 0 1 i ! 0 0 ) ¡ · ¸ · ¸ 1 1 1 0 take x = 1, ~v = = + i 1 i 0 1 · ¸ · ¸ · ¸ is an eigenvalue for ¸= i. We note that ¡ ¸¹0 = i is the conjugate of ¸0 = i ¡ ~v = ~u (the conjugate vector of eigenvector ~u) is an eigenvector for ¸¹0.
    [Show full text]
  • 11.6 Jordan Form and Eigenanalysis
    788 11.6 Jordan Form and Eigenanalysis Generalized Eigenanalysis The main result is Jordan's decomposition A = PJP −1; valid for any real or complex square matrix A. We describe here how to compute the invertible matrix P of generalized eigenvectors and the upper triangular matrix J, called a Jordan form of A. Jordan block. An m×m upper triangular matrix B(λ, m) is called a Jordan block provided all m diagonal elements are the same eigenvalue λ and all super-diagonal elements are one: 0 λ 1 0 ··· 0 0 1 B . C B . C B(λ, m) = B C (m × m matrix) B C @ 0 0 0 ··· λ 1 A 0 0 0 ··· 0 λ Jordan form. Given an n × n matrix A, a Jordan form J for A is a block diagonal matrix J = diag(B(λ1; m1);B(λ2; m2);:::;B(λk; mk)); where λ1,..., λk are eigenvalues of A (duplicates possible) and m1 + ··· + mk = n. Because the eigenvalues of A are on the diagonal of J, then A has exactly k eigenpairs. If k < n, then A is non-diagonalizable. The relation A = PJP −1 is called a Jordan decomposition of A. Invertible matrix P is called the matrix of generalized eigenvectors of A. It defines a coordinate system x = P y in which the vector function x ! Ax is transformed to the simpler vector function y ! Jy. If equal eigenvalues are adjacent in J, then Jordan blocks with equal diagonal entries will be adjacent. Zeros can appear on the super-diagonal of J, because adjacent Jordan blocks join on the super-diagonal with a zero.
    [Show full text]
  • The Analytic Theory of Matrix Orthogonal Polynomials
    THE ANALYTIC THEORY OF MATRIX ORTHOGONAL POLYNOMIALS DAVID DAMANIK, ALEXANDER PUSHNITSKI, AND BARRY SIMON Contents 1. Introduction 2 1.1. Introduction and Overview 2 1.2. Matrix-Valued Measures 6 1.3. Matrix M¨obius Transformations 10 1.4. Applications and Examples 14 2. Matrix Orthogonal Polynomials on the Real Line 17 2.1. Preliminaries 17 2.2. Block Jacobi Matrices 23 2.3. The m-Function 29 2.4. Second Kind Polynomials 31 2.5. Solutions to the Difference Equations 32 2.6. Wronskians and the Christoffel–Darboux Formula 33 2.7. The CD Kernel 34 2.8. Christoffel Variational Principle 35 2.9. Zeros 37 2.10. Lower Bounds on p and the Stieltjes–Weyl Formula for m 39 2.11. Wronskians of Vector-Valued Solutions 40 2.12. The Order of Zeros/Poles of m(z) 40 2.13. Resolvent of the Jacobi Matrix 41 3. Matrix Orthogonal Polynomials on the Unit Circle 43 3.1. Definition of MOPUC 43 3.2. The Szeg˝oRecursion 43 3.3. Second Kind Polynomials 47 3.4. Christoffel–Darboux Formulas 51 3.5. Zeros of MOPUC 53 Date: October 22, 2007. 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. 42C05, 47B36, 30C10. Key words and phrases. Orthogonal Polynomials, Matrix-Valued Measures, Block Jacobi Matrices, Block CMV Matrices. D.D. was supported in part by NSF grants DMS–0500910 and DMS-0653720. B.S. was supported in part by NSF grants DMS–0140592 and DMS-0652919 and U.S.–Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF) Grant No. 2002068. 1 2 D.DAMANIK,A.PUSHNITSKI,ANDB.SIMON 3.6.
    [Show full text]
  • Inverse Eigenvalue Problem for Euclidean Distance Matrices By
    Inverse Eigenvalue Problem for Euclidean Distance Matrices by Emily M. Dempsey A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Auburn, Alabama May 4, 2014 Approved by Peter M. Nylen, Professor of Mathematics Douglas A. Leonard, Professor of Mathematics Thomas H. Pate, Professor of Mathematics Abstract Emily M. Dempsey, Mathematics, Auburn University The Inverse Eigenvalue Problem for Euclidean Distance Matrices This paper examines the inverse eigenvalue problem (IEP) for the particular class of Euclidean distance matrices (EDM). Studying the necessary and sufficient conditions for a matrix to be an element of EDM gives us a better understanding as to the necessary conditions placed on the numbers to be the eigenvalues of some Euclidean distance matrix. Using this necessary conditions, Hayden was able to solve the IEP order n using a Hadamard matrix of the same order. After 10 years, an error in his construction of Hayden's solution order n + 1 was noted and corrected accordingly however the result was not a solution to the IEP of order n + 1. ii Table of Contents Abstract . ii List of Symbols . iv 1 What is an inverse eigenvalue problem? . .1 1.1 Examples of solved inverse eigenvalue problems . .1 1.1.1 Circulant matrices . .2 1.1.2 Real symmetric tridiagonal matrices . .2 2 Definition and existence of an Euclidean distance matrix . .4 2.1 EDM definition . .4 2.2 Characterization of EDM .............................5 2.3 Eigenvalue properties of EDM ..........................8 3 Connections between Hadamard and Euclidean distance matrices .
    [Show full text]